1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 3 million to the Defendant on May 29, 2014, August 6, 2014, and December 18, 2014, respectively.

B. Around July 7, 2015, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2 million on the same day, KRW 2.5 million on the following week, and KRW 2.5 million on the following insular circle, with regard to the return of the money remitted by the Plaintiff as above.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). C.

Since then, on July 7, 2015 and September 14, 2015, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 4 million in total.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 4 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 7 million as above to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 3 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

3. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view the instant agreement as an agreement to return a loan for consumption (the Plaintiff appears to be the agreement to return a loan for investment, but the evidence examined in this case alone is insufficient to recognize it). Of the money already paid or agreed to be paid to the Plaintiff, the portion exceeding three million won, as seen in the above paragraph 1, is deemed as interest (i.e., the amount exceeding four million won), and therefore, the portion exceeding twenty-five percent per annum, which is the highest interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act at the time of the instant agreement, is null and void.

However, it is clear in the calculation that the principal amount of KRW 4 million paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff exceeds the sum of the interest calculated at 25% per annum during the period from the date the Defendant received remittance to the date of return (see attached Form 400,000,000). Thus, the agreement of this case does not exceed the maximum interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act and constitutes a valid part.